[Extracted with edits from Indira Devi v. Veena Gupta, (2023) 8 SCC 124]
‘A’, the absolute owner, with the consent of his family members, executed a conditional sale deed in favour of his tenant. The conditional sale deed contained a clause empowering the vendors to repurchase the property within seven years on repayment of the sale consideration. Which of the following statements regarding the agreement is true?
- The agreement is invalid
- The agreement is not valid because a conditional sale deed containing a clause for repurchase cannot be executed
- The agreement is not valid because the time period provided for repurchase by the vendor is very long, i.e., seven years
- The agreement is valid
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
A conditional sale deed that includes a clause for repurchase within a reasonable period, even if it extends to seven years, is valid under the Indian Contract Act, as long as it is agreed upon by both parties and does not contravene any statutory provisions.
Which of the following is correct regarding the assignability of the contract?
- The assignment of contracts is expressly governed by the provisions outlined in Sections 130 to 137 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
- A party to a contract can transfer his liabilities under the contract without the consent of the other party
- A party to a contract cannot transfer his liabilities under the contract without the consent of the other party
- Transfer of obligation can be made to anyone without permission of anyone
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Statement (A) is correct: The provisions governing the assignment of contracts are outlined in Sections 130 to 137 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. These sections deal with the assignment of rights and liabilities under contracts.
Statement (B) is incorrect: A party cannot transfer his liabilities without the consent of the other party, unless explicitly allowed by the contract.
Statement (C) is incorrect: This is a misleading statement as the transfer of liabilities without consent is generally prohibited under the Indian Contract Act, but the contract may provide for exceptions.
Statement (D) is incorrect: Transfer of obligations typically requires the consent of the other party.
Who among the following is not ‘representative-in-interest’ for the purpose of obtaining specific performance?
- The person to whom the interest in the contract is transferred for a valuable consideration
- The person to whom the interest in the contract devolves by succession
- The person to whom the interest in contract is gifted by a gift deed
- Rank trespasser, as an intermeddler
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
A ”rank trespasser” or intermeddler has no legal standing to enforce specific performance of a contract, as they have no legitimate interest or title in the contract.
Consider the following statements:
I. The benefit of a contract is assignable in ‘cases where it can make no difference to the person on whom the obligation lies to which of two persons, he is to discharge it’
II. A contract which is such that the promisor must perform it in person, viz. involving personal considerations or personal skill or qualifications (such as his credit), are by their nature not assignable
III. The contractual rights for the payment of money or to building work do not involve personal considerations and are not contracts of a personal nature
Choose the correct answer:
I. The benefit of a contract is assignable in ‘cases where it can make no difference to the person on whom the obligation lies to which of two persons, he is to discharge it’
II. A contract which is such that the promisor must perform it in person, viz. involving personal considerations or personal skill or qualifications (such as his credit), are by their nature not assignable
III. The contractual rights for the payment of money or to building work do not involve personal considerations and are not contracts of a personal nature
Choose the correct answer:
- I and II are correct
- II and III are correct
- Only III is correct
- I, II and III are correct
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
- Statement I: "The benefit of a contract is assignable in cases where it can make no difference to the person on whom the obligation lies to which of two persons, he is to discharge it." This statement is generally correct as it aligns with the principle that rights under a contract can be assigned when they do not affect the obligor.
- Statement II: "A contract which is such that the promisor must perform it in person, viz. involving personal considerations or personal skill or qualifications are by their nature not assignable." This statement is valid and aligns with the law, which states that contracts involving personal skill or trust are not assignable.
- Statement III: "The contractual rights for the payment of money or to building work do not involve personal considerations and are not contracts of a personal nature." This is true as these types of contracts usually do not require personal performance and therefore are generally assignable.
Consider the following statements:
I. Where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of the contract as per law, such contract is not specifically enforceable
II. A contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise, is not specifically enforceable
III. After the Amendment Act of 2018, a contract for non-performance for which compensation is an adequate relief is not specifically enforceable Choose the correct answer:
I. Where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of the contract as per law, such contract is not specifically enforceable
II. A contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise, is not specifically enforceable
III. After the Amendment Act of 2018, a contract for non-performance for which compensation is an adequate relief is not specifically enforceable Choose the correct answer:
- All are correct
- I and II are correct
- II and III are correct
- Only II is correct
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The question presents three statements related to the specific enforceability of contracts, which we'll evaluate based on legal principles.
I. Statement: A contract with substituted performance obtained as per law is not specifically enforceable.
Analysis: After the Amendment Act of 2018, substituted performance, as per Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, allows a party to have a third person perform the contract. This implies that if a substituted performance is sought and obtained, the original obligation isn't specifically enforceable.
Conclusion: This statement is incorrect.
II. Statement: Contracts involving continuous duties which the court cannot supervise aren't specifically enforceable.
Analysis: Section 14(c) of the Specific Relief Act states that any contract requiring continuous performance and is not supervised by the court is not specifically enforceable. Therefore, this statement aligns with the established legal doctrine and is correct.
Conclusion: This statement is correct.
III. Statement: Post-2018, a contract for non-performance, with adequate compensation, isn't specifically enforceable.
Analysis: Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act provides that when compensation is adequate, specific performance is not granted. The 2018 amendment emphasized this, making this statement consistent with the law.
Conclusion: This statement is correct.
Considering the above, options II and III are correct.
Top Questions on Contract Law
- Distinction between the ‘sale’ and ‘agreement to sell’ is necessary to determine
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Contract Law
- Under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 a court can enforce specific performance of a contract when ____.
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Contract Law
- The remedy of ‘rescission of a contract’ is available under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 when the contract is ____.
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Contract Law
- A suit for ‘rectification of instruments’ can be filed under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 when instrument ____.
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Contract Law
- The standard of care to be taken by a bailee for the goods bailed is same as
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Contract Law
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
1. Conservative Approach:
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
- US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
- Secretary-General’s Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of ’collective security’ as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed ’peace enforcement units’ under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of ’preventive diplomacy’. The report candidly recognized the Security Council’s incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
2. Radical Approach:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
- Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
- Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
- Developing a new global security system .
- The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
- CLAT PG - 2026
- International Law
- “The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compen sation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations. Quite often the courts have a difficult task in determining dam ages in various fact situations. The yardsticks normally adopted for determining the compensation payable in private tort claims are not as such applicable when a constitutional court determines the compensation in cases where there is a viola tion of fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens.
... In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that there is no straitjacket formula for computation of damages and we find that there is no uniformity or yardstick followed in awarding damages for violation of fundamental rights. In Rudul Sah case [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141] this Court used the terminology ’palliative’ for measuring the damages and the formula of ’adhoc’ was applied. In Sebastian Hongray case [Se bastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82] the expression used by this Court for determining the monetary compensation was ’exemplary’ costs and the formula adopted was ’punitive’. In Bhim Singh case [Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677], the expression used by the Court was ’compensation’ and the method adopted was ’tortious formula’. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416] the expression used by this Court for determining the compensation was ’monetary compensation’. The formula adopted was ’cost to cost’ method. Courts have not, therefore, adopted a uniform criterion since no statutory formula has been laid down.”
tracted from: Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481- CLAT PG - 2026
- Constitutional Laws
- It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not pos sessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no ev idence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
tracted with edits and revisions from Neeraj Sud v Jaswinder Singh 2024 INSC 825- CLAT PG - 2026
- Law of Torts
Today, in the year 2025, we have been experiencing the drastic consequences of large scale destruction of environment on human lives in the capital city of our country and in many other cities. At least for a span of two months every year, the residents of Delhi suffocate due to air pollution. The AQI level is either dangerous or very dangerous. They suffer in their health. The other leading cities are not far behind. The air and water pollution in the cities is ever increasing. Therefore, coming out with measures such as the 2021 Official Memorandum is violative of fundamental rights of all persons guaranteed under Article 21 to live in a pollution free environment. It also infringes the right to health guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The 2021 OM talks about the concept of development. Can there be development at the cost of environment? Conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development. Therefore, going out of the way by issuing such OMs to protect those who have caused harm to the environment has to be deprecated by the Courts which are under a constitutional and statutory mandate to uphold the fundamental right under Article 21 and to protect the environment. In fact, the Courts should comedown heavily on such attempts. As stated earlier, the 2021 OM deals with project proponents who were fully aware of the EIA notification and who have taken conscious risk to flout the EIA notification and go ahead with the construction/continuation/expansion of projects. They have shown scant respect to the law and their duty to protect the environment. Apart from violation of Article 21, such action is completely arbitrary which is violative article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides being violative of the 1986 Act and the EIA notification.
(Extracted with edits from Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 718)- CLAT PG - 2026
- Environmental Law
With the Paris Agreement, countries established an enhanced transparency frame work (ETF). Under ETF, starting in 2024, countries will report transparently on actions taken and progress in climate change mitigation, adaptation measures and support provided or received. It also provides for international procedures for the review of the submitted reports.
The information gathered through the ETF will feed into the Global stocktake which will assess the collective progress towards the long-term climate goals. This will lead to recommendations for countries to set more ambitious plans in the next round.
Although climate change action needs to be massively increased to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, the years since its entry into force have already sparked low-carbon solutions and new markets. More and more countries, regions, cities and companies are establishing carbon neutrality targets. Zero-carbon solutions are becoming competitive across economic sectors representing 25% of emissions. This trend is most noticeable in the power and transport sectors and has created many new business opportunities for early movers. By 2030, zero-carbon solutions could be competitive in sectors representing over 70% of global emissions.
(Extracted with edits from the website UNFCCC.INT)- CLAT PG - 2026
- Environmental Law